Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'normalized' and does not disclose that the search may include author and pre-release sections controlled by optional flags, nor what normalization entails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses. Every word contributes to identifying the action and subject, and nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with 11 optional parameters that control inclusion of authors, audiobooks, and pre-releases, the description is thin: it does not explain the multi-section search behavior or how this tool relates to its many sibling search tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 11 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description only implies a search term and adds no syntax, defaults, or section-selection semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns normalized Spotify audiobook search results for a search term.' This clearly identifies the operation and the domain. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling tools such as spotify_search or spotify_audiobook, so it is not a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not explain when to call this instead of spotify_search or the audiobook detail tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.